G.R. No. 202704 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JOEL ABAT Y COMETA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY, this Court finds herein accused Joel Abat y Cometa guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of Rape punishable under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code and said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with all the accessory penalties as provided for by law. The accused is hereby ordered to pay the private complainant the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and the amount of P50,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages. [12] According AAAs testimony full faith and credit, the RTC was not convinced with Abats defense of denial and ill motive. It said that it was highly unlikely that AAA, his own niece would falsely charge him of such a serious crime and go public with her ordeal just because of a misunderstanding between him and her mother over a property. Moreover, the RTC found it striking that nobody testified in his behalf, including his own family. [13] Challenging his conviction, Abat appealed to the Court of Appeals, [14] pleading for the reversal of his conviction on the ground of reasonable doubt. Ruling of the Court of Appeals The Court of Appeals, however, found no error committed by the RTC, and affirmed Abats conviction, modifying only the award of damages, to wit: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the assailed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION . As thus modified, accused-appellant is ordered to pay Php75,000.00 as moral damages and Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages. [15] The Court of Appeals declared that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of rape, thus resulting in Abats conviction. It agreed with the RTC that AAAs credible testimony was enough to prove Abats guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [16] Issue Aggrieved, Abat elevated [17] his case to this Court, with the same assignment of error he presented before the Court of Appeals, [18] viz : THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. [19] Abat is alleging that he and AAA had a romantic relationship, which eventually turned sour when AAA started asking for money from him all the time. In support of this claim, he cites the birth date of the baby, who was supposedly the product of his crime. Abat says that if the baby was born in April 2002, then his version of the story, that they had consensual sex in July 2001, is more credible than her story of rape in September 2001; otherwise, the baby would have been premature. [20] Ruling of this Court We find no reason to reverse Abats conviction. In essence, Abat is questioning the lower courts reliance on AAAs credibility, which led to his conviction. Credibility of AAA When this Court is faced with the issue of credibility of witnesses, it follows a set of guidelines as established in jurisprudence, viz : First , the Court gives the highest respect to the RTCs evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses, considering its unique position i